There's only been 1 World Title change this year

[thelonewolf527]

Yep, between the two major titles, there's only been one title change this year so far and that was at WrestleMania. Sure Sheamus will lose it eventually and we may see Punk and Cena trade it, but 8 months into the year with only 1 change is pretty crazy.

[AdamAFL was sooooo wrong]

Throw in TNA's title and you've got three major titles that have changed hands just twice this year. For companies that have become renowned recently for handing people reigns willy nilly it's a nice change.

[Jimmy]

Very refreshing. Kinda blows my mind that WWE has had Cena win the WWE Title 7 times in a little less than 3 years.

[Crappler El 0 M]

And the one time it did change hands, a lot of fans passionately hated it...though this was probably due more to the manner of the loss more than the loss itself.

[MrBRulzOK]

Apparently this is Triple H's doing. And yeah, I'd say it is a change for the better. It'll make the title changes mean alot more when they do eventually happen.

[Crappler El 0 M]

Aug 23, 2012 18:41:59 GMT -5 MrBRulzOK said:

Apparently this is Triple H's doing. And yeah, I'd say it is a change for the better. It'll make the title changes mean alot more when they do eventually happen.

Absolutely. I'm all for it. I think they should consider only having one Money in the Bank from now on as well.

[mattyy]

Aug 23, 2012 18:37:17 GMT -5 Crappler El 0 M said:

And the one time it did change hands, a lot of fans passionately hated it...though this was probably due more to the manner of the loss more than the loss itself.

oh, it was the manner. You put the match from Extreme Rules on WrestleMania, and I highly doubt there would have been such a disdain for Sheamus... up until his feud with Birdo. Although, I don't think D-Bry would be nearly as over as he is now.

[Deleted]

I almost can't believe it, based off of the amount of title changes in years past.

Aug 23, 2012 18:37:17 GMT -5 Crappler El 0 M said:

And the one time it did change hands, a lot of fans passionately hated it...though this was probably due more to the manner of the loss more than the loss itself.

Definitely due to the manner in which DB lost it, in 18 seconds. It was inevitable that Sheamus was going to win in from him, we just hoped DB would be able to put up a fight for it.

[rusty]

kind of amazing considering the product doesn't feel any less boring than the usual ways

[Deleted]

I get what they were going for with the Sheamus / Bryan thing and I think it could have worked, but the problems were that a match like that doesn't belong at Mania, and moreover the storyline didn't warrant it. Had Bryan been ducking Sheamus for months then sure, good payoff, but instead the two barely had anything to do with each other in the weeks building up to it and Sheamus had no real reason to go after him besides wanting the title.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

Aug 23, 2012 19:02:07 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

I get what they were going for with the Sheamus / Bryan thing and I think it could have worked, but the problems were that a match like that doesn't belong at Mania, and moreover the storyline didn't warrant it. Had Bryan been ducking Sheamus for months then sure, good payoff, but instead the two barely had anything to do with each other in the weeks building up to it and Sheamus had no real reason to go after him besides wanting the title.

Yeah, that payoff seemed like it would have been better suited for Cody vs. Big Show with the Embarrassing Mania Moments than Bryan vs. Sheamus.

[HMARK Center]

Aug 23, 2012 18:57:27 GMT -5 rusty said:

kind of amazing considering the product doesn't feel any less boring than the usual ways

Yeah, for both WWE and TNA it's a good first step, but it doesn't solve most major issues either company might face.

Having long or short title reigns doesn't matter THAT much, it's all about how the belt, the main contenders, and their feuds are booked over the long haul. If a few quick changes can be set up in an exciting, logical way, then great; if a long reign can be made to look prestigious and important, awesome.

Still, I do prefer long reigns to short ones in general.

[A Platypus Rave]

Aug 23, 2012 21:19:44 GMT -5 Oh Cry Me a Screwball said:

Aug 23, 2012 19:02:07 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

I get what they were going for with the Sheamus / Bryan thing and I think it could have worked, but the problems were that a match like that doesn't belong at Mania, and moreover the storyline didn't warrant it. Had Bryan been ducking Sheamus for months then sure, good payoff, but instead the two barely had anything to do with each other in the weeks building up to it and Sheamus had no real reason to go after him besides wanting the title.

Yeah, that payoff seemed like it would have been better suited for Cody vs. Big Show with the Embarrassing Mania Moments than Bryan vs. Sheamus.

Yeah... the Cody vs. Big Show ending with a Knock out punch as the bell rung would fit the story a hell of a lot better than the Sheamus vs. Bryan one.

[Nic Nemeth]

I'd rather Sheamus hold the title this long than them handing the title to Khali, Swagger, Ziggler for 11 minutes, Christian for 2 days, and Big Show for a minute.

[Deleted]

Aug 24, 2012 2:07:48 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave said:

Aug 23, 2012 21:19:44 GMT -5 Oh Cry Me a Screwball said:

Yeah, that payoff seemed like it would have been better suited for Cody vs. Big Show with the Embarrassing Mania Moments than Bryan vs. Sheamus.

Yeah... the Cody vs. Big Show ending with a Knock out punch as the bell rung would fit the story a hell of a lot better than the Sheamus vs. Bryan one.

Pretty much. Have Cody maybe start the match off talking trash then start walking around like a sumo wrestler and yelling, "WrestleMania, baby!" and the like then bam, punch and three count and it'd have made for a great karma moment.